In Re Sevitski’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 326 · 11 U.S.C. § 330 · 11 U.S.C. § 503 · 11 U.S.C. § 507 · 11 U.S.C. § 521 · 11 U.S.C. § 543 · 28 U.S.C. § 157
Relies on Hensley v. Eckerhart · Ramos v. Lamm · Mares v. Credit Bureau of Raton · Lederman Enterprises Inc Rubner Kutner Pc v. US Trustee · Mid Region Petroleum Inc General American Transportation Corporation v. W Martin
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[f]or purposes of this opinion, this Court presumes that such prior award of fees establishes the existence and validity of [the receiver’s] claim in at least the amount of $105,431.07. But such prior award of fees does not establish, as res judicata or collateral estoppel or otherwise, [the receiver’s] entitlement to priority payment of such sum or any part thereof as an administrative expense in this bankruptcy case. The parties are not the same — there was no bankruptcy Trustee in the State court receivership when [the receiver’s] fees were awarded. The issue is not the same — the State court’s standards for allowing [the receiver’s] fees and expenses do not appear; but the State court surely was not asked, as this Court is, to decide whether [the receiver] should be paid before other creditors from the limited assets of an estate which is not just in receivership but is terminally bankrupt. It is the duty of this Court, and none other, to determine whether or to what extent [the receiver] deserves to be paid out of the pockets of other, less deserving creditors. Sevitski, supra at 854 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.